CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Charles-Alphonse Dufresnoy
De arte graphica
(Paris, 1668)
Edition, translation and commentary by Christopher Allen, Yasmin Haskell and Frances Muecke
Geneva, Librairie Droz, 2005
Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part One
Few works can claim to have "made
history" like the didactic poem in Latin hexameters entitled De arte graphica by Charles-Alphonse
Dufresnoy (1611-1668); and, at the same time, there is more confusion on it
than on most other works. In truth, De
arte graphica inaugurated a (fundamentally academic) tradition aiming at
the teaching of theoretical-practical precepts to young artists. From time to
time this text was therefore accompanied by explanatory notes, and translated
from Latin into French, Italian, English, and German. Moreover, the
translations were sometimes in prose and sometimes in verse. Since the year of
the princeps edition (as we shall
see) interventions included changing the punctuation and thereby assigning a
different meaning to some passages. The commented edition of the work, with
English translation, which was proposed in 2005 by a trio of Australian
scholars (Christopher Allen, Yasmin Haskell and Frances Muecke) and published
by Droz publishers, is therefore most welcome. In addition to the original
version of the poem and a new, modern English prose translation, the authors
provided a rich apparatus on which I will talk in this review. In addition, they
included the following introductory chapters before the text and the commentary:
- Christopher Allen, Charles-Alphonse Dufresnoy, painter and poet;
- Yasmin Haskell, Dufresnoy’s De arte graphica and the traditions of didactic poetry: a little drop goes a long way;
- Frances Muecke, “A little French booke of painting”: the European dissemination of De arte graphica.
The reasons for a
success
In reality, reading the 549 lines of the poem raises,
first of all, the question why the De
arte graphica had all this success. After all, as the curators declared
from the beginning, the poem, by itself, had nothing original, since it collected
and put together a series of precepts that were present in the theory of
Italian art from Leon Battista Alberti onwards. In short, Dufresnoy adopted
concepts (starting from the ut pictura
poesis, based on which painting and poetry are sister arts) that had been around for centuries. It is
no coincidence, in this regard, that the commentary on the poem clarified the
impossibility, in many cases, to identify the French author's precise sources,
given he had taken over concepts already expressed by many others. The goal of
the three scholars, rather, became that of reconstructing the circulation of given
ideas (making the nearly two hundred pages of the commentary particularly
valuable).
Dufresnoy's poem was extremely successful
because it came out at the right time and quickly became a real cult text. The
publication - it was said – took place in 1668. The Academie Royale de Peinture et Sculpture had been founded twenty
years before in Paris. Despite the difficult initial years, corresponding to
the political turbulence of the Fronde [1] the Parisian Academy soon
established itself as a cornerstone of the growing power of the Sun King and as
a keystone of classicism in art. Such a crucial role would have been impossible
without the handover of artistic hegemony from Italy to France, of which the
publication in 1651 of Leonardo's Treaty of painting was a symbol. Although (as we shall
see) De arte graphica was not
immediately perceived as a work in support of the Academy (and, indeed, it was
seen as a polemical text in France), soon, in a European context, the work was
appraised as an output of the most up-to-date art theory. The fact of being
written in Latin verses placed painting, in itself, on the same level as poetry
in the field of liberal arts, a claim that was typical of artists, and on which
a clash had taken place in Paris, for example, between the Academy and the Guild.
Just as poetry had its poetic reference text in Horace's Ars poetica, painting now found the new Horace in Dufresnoy, the
one who was able to compose a work of didactic value recollecting the maxims
that the artist must master to rise to glory.
In reality, this happened around the end of the
century. The decades from 1668 up to the end of the seventeenth century had
been much more uneven. The first complication, for example, is that in 1668 two
"first" editions of the work (and not a single one) were brought out.
But at this point we should take a step back and discuss Dufresnoy's life.
A stranger in Italy, a
foreigner at home
 |
| Charles-Alphonse Dufresnoy, Self-portrait, Copenaghen, Staten Museum for Kunst Source: http://collection.smk.dk/#/en/detail/KMSsp698 via Wikimedia Commons |
Charles-Alphonse Dufresnoy was born in a
wealthy family in 1611. After having completed humanistic studies probably with
the Jesuits, he soon turned to artistic practice against the will of his
parents, who disinherited him. Between 1633 and 1634 (the exact date is not
known) he moved to Rome and stayed there for twenty years. It astonishes, in
reality, how little we know about these twenty years, in particular with
reference to the acquaintances of Charles-Alphonse. It is certain that, in
1635, Dufresnoy was joined by Pierre Mignard (1612-1695), probably known in the
Parisian atelier of Simon Vouet; the two formed an 'inseparable' fellowship (as
they are precisely described in the artistic literature) which lasted twenty
years. Definitely, Mignard had greater artistic talent than Dufresnoy (on whose
artistic achievements we actually know very little), while Charles-Alphonse
showed an extraordinary interest in theoretical speculation that led him to
consult most of the artistic literature of the time. We do not know exactly
what were the years of compilation of the poem: strictly speaking, one could
take for good an indication of Dufresnoy himself, who spoke of the period from
1640 to 1645 (p. 24), but the author himself (in the dedication to Colbert) ended
up talking about a commitment that lasted thirty-two years, which would suggest
that the French scholar had started practically as soon as he had arrived in
Rome. And, at the same time, it seems difficult to think of a man who for
thirty years applied himself exclusively to the editing of a poem of 549
hexameters. At the end of 1655 or at the beginning of 1656, Dufresnoy returned
to France, probably to settle issues related to the inheritance of his parents.
On the way, he certainly stayed for a long time in Venice (his passion for Titian was actually already acute in Rome and we do
not know if and what had been the movements that took place during the twenty
Italian years; it is very possible that he had also been to Venice before),
while echoes can be caught in the poem about a passage across Mantua.
 |
| Pierre Mignard, Self-portrait, Paris, Louvre Museum Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mignard-autoportrait.jpg |
The return to France was a trauma. Charles Le
Brun (1619-1690) had established himself at the head of the Academy. Mignard,
who had aspired to that place, was systematically boycotting Le Brun’s work,
siding with the supporters of the Guild [2] and bringing with him Dufresnoy and
the sculptor Michel Anguier (1612-1686). Charles-Alphonse was therefore not
well regarded in the Academy. At this point we must rely on what Roger de Piles (1635-1709) wrote in his biography
of Dufresnoy. The latter and de Piles made their acquaintance around 1663. De
Piles convinced him to publish the poem, and to accompany it with a French
translation (in prose) that would allow the understanding of the text even to
those who did not know Latin. At the end of 1664, Dufresnoy suffered a heart
attack. Probably his health situation was so serious, that Mignard announced
his death in 1665.
The two "first
editions" (1668)
De Piles himself confirmed the date in his
biography of the artist. It was however not accurate. Dufresnoy actually passed
away in January 1668. It is not clear why Mignard and De Piles reported wrong
information. Perhaps they did it merely for pity, to avoid revealing the fact
that the friend had lost any intellectual capacity. What is certain is that de
Piles took possession (first with the consent of Mignard) of De arte graphica and began to transform
it in "his own" work: he enriched it with a comment and with a
glossary of technical terms; moreover, he also intervened (albeit marginally)
on the Latin text. To the contrary of what De Piles wrote in his introduction
of 1668, it appears extremely unlikely that the French translation and the commentary
really reflected the precise wishes of Dufresnoy; certainly, plenty of features
aimed at marking distance with respect to Le Brun’s management of the Academy.
This circumstance could have been initially pleasing to Mignard, especially in
light of the fact that another poem (La
peinture) was given as imminent, this time by Charles Perrault (1628-1703). In it Le Brun was
consecrated as Colbert's right arm in the field of artistic politics. However,
Mignard, at a certain point, must have perceived de Piles' operation as
excessive and disrespectful of the pivotal role of the dying friend, so that he
decided to published De Arte graphica independently.
In the second half of 1668 the "true" princeps of the poem was
brought out, with text in Latin and the dedication to Colbert written by
Dufresnoy. The complete title of the work, printed in Paris by Claude Barbin, was
Caroli Alfonsi Du Fresnoy de Arte
graphica liber, sive diathesis graphidos et chromatices, trium picturae
partium, antiquorum ideae artificum nova restitutio. Lutetiae Parisiorum apud Claudium Barbin (The
book on graphic art by Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy, or the recovery of the three
parts of painting, as defined by the ancients: invention/diathesis,
design/graphis and colouring/chromatice). The edition edited by Roger de Piles was
released almost simultaneously, this time with a Latin text and a translation
in French prose and an interpretative apparatus that used a series of notes and
a glossary of technical terms for the "profane"; a short and also
retouched essay entitled Sentiments de
Charles-Alphonse Dufresnoy (The Feelings by Charles-Alphonse Dufresnoy) was
also added. The title of the work was L’Art de Peinture de Charles Alphonse Du Fresnoy, Traduit en François avec des Remarques nécessaires et
tres-amples (The art of
painting of Charles Alphonse Dufresnoy, translated in French with necessary and
extensive comments). It
was printed in Paris by Nicolas L’Anglois ruë Saint Jacques à la Victoire, with the privilege of the king.
As one could expected, de Piles’ version
immediately replaced the one by Mignard, precisely because it was also written
in French. It became the one followed by all the commentators of later
centuries. However the edition by Mignard had two merits: first, it brought to
light the original version of the poem licensed by Dufresnoy; and second, it
proved that de Piles' loyalty to the will of the deceased friend was not as unconditional,
as instead strongly supported by de Piles himself.
 |
| Nicolas Poussin, The Inspiration of the Poet, 1629-1630, Paris, Louvre Museum Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poussin_Inspiration_of_the_poet_Louvre.jpg |
Contents and genesis
The present modern edition made a choice that I
would dare to say inevitable. It recovered the text of the Mignard edition,
because it was original, and used it for the translation. All additional or
different elements were however presented in the appendix or in the commentary.
In its primitive version, the poem did not include partitions inside the work.
It began with the probably most literary verses, dedicated to the ut pictura poesis, continued by
addressing the issue of the importance of combining theory and practice in a
correct manner and then moved on to the individual ‘precepts’. De Piles, on the
other hand, made a distinction (intervened at a later time) between the
sections devoted respectively to the invention, to the design and to the colouring
(on the use of the term 'colouring' and not 'colour' see in this blog the
review to Roger de Piles, Dialogue on colouring). While this tripartite division
facilitated the orientation of the reader, it sacrificed the last precepts
that, in truth, have miscellaneous content. None of these, however, and as
already mentioned, was expressing 'new' ideas: they encompassed the selective
imitation of nature, the ancient statues as a model, the supremacy of history
painting, the value of decorum, the rules that ensure a balanced composition of
the picture, and finally the usual ethical precepts relating to the conduct of
a moderate life, the repudiation of pride, and the constancy of application in
work.
It is the opinion of the curators that the
'hard core' of the poem was influenced by the clash that took place in Rome, at
the Academy of Saint Luke, in 1636 between the classicists on the one hand
(whose leading exponent was Andrea Sacchi) and the new wave of baroque artists,
led by Pietro da Cortona. Of course Dufresnoy took the classicist side (p. 43).
I am not sure of the usefulness (if not symbolic) of recalling a single
specific event as the cause of a conflict of ideas, but it is evident (and the
vaults of Palazzo Barberini painted precisely by Sacchi and Pietro da Cortona
are the objective proof) that there two very different worlds opposed each
other.
 |
| Pietro da Cortona, Triumph of Divine Providence, 1632-1639, Rome, Palazzo Barberini Source: www.ibaroque.it |
 |
| Andrea Sacchi, Allegory of Divine Wisdom, 1629-1633, Rome, Palazzo Barberini Source: sailko via Wikimedia Commons |
The genesis of the work would have been
characterized by stratifications. First there would have been the collection of
the single precepts, taken from the artistic literature and from the direct comparison
with the main exponents of Roman classicism. Only later on would Dufresnoy have
actually compiled the work, not without second thoughts and additions, which
can be identified as successive insertions with respect to the first draft
(see, for example, what was written on p. 237 as a commentary on the lines of
lines 37-53). In particular, the section on colouring would be affected by the
long Venetian stay on the way home.
Indeed, it is not certain that, from a literary
point of view, Horace with his Ars
poetica was Dufresnoy's
only model. Yasmine Haskell discussed this point in the second chapter of the
introduction to the work. In particular, the author invited us to look
carefully at the emblem books, much more widespread at the time than the didactic poems, whose numbers
only increased exponentially in the 18th century. The choice to use Latin as
the editorial language deserves a separate discussion. Of course, it could have
been dictated by the desire to imitate Horace, or by that of affirming the
'nobility' of painting through the adoption of a 'noble' language par
excellence or that of ensuring greater circulation of the work at European
level (but, as we have seen, the Mignard edition, which contained only the Latin
text, was immediately forgotten). The explanation, however, could be much
simpler. Dufresnoy had a profound humanistic culture thanks to the education
received from the Jesuits, and most likely he did not speak and write correctly
in Italian, just as, after twenty years of stay in that country, he did not
perfectly master French. In short, Latin might have been the idiom with which
he felt most confident.
End of Part One
NOTES
[1] See in this blog the review to Claire
Farago, Janis Bell and Carlo Vecce, The Fabrication of Leonardo da Vinci's
Treatise on painting, and in particular the paragraph The Royal Academy of painting and
sculpture and the Academy (Parisian) di San Luca: conflict between artists and
guild in the Paris of the Fronde.
[2] See note 1.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento